THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 29, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to study the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans including maritime safety.
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Bev Busson, a senator from British Columbia, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting today.
Today we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or the clerk, and we will work hard to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to allow the members of this committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: On February 10, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to study the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans.
Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following witnesses from the Canadian Committee for a Sustainable Eel Fishery: Genna Carey, President; Stanley King, Member and Fisherman, Atlantic Elver Fishery; and Mitch Feigenbaum, Member and President, South Shore Trading Co. Ltd.
On behalf of the members of this committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand that you have some opening remarks. Following your presentation, the members of the committee will have questions for you.
Genna Carey, President, Canadian Committee for a Sustainable Eel Fishery, Inc.: Thank you very much. I’m grateful for this opportunity to speak to the committee regarding the state of the elver fishery, especially since Minister Lebouthillier is considering cancelling the elver season for 2024.
I’m joined today by CCSEF member Stanley King from Atlantic Elver Fishery and Mitchell Feigenbaum of South Shore Trading. Mr. King is appearing today on behalf of one of the original commercial license holders, Atlantic Elver Fishery, and Mr. Feigenbaum is arguably the most knowledgeable in the industry when it comes to the trade of North American eels. I am representing the Canadian Committee for a Sustainable Eel Fishery, Inc., a group that advocates for the conservation of American eel species through sustainable fishing practices and scientific monitoring.
The Canadian elver fishery is unique. Fishing happens at night on select rivers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Fish are sold live to foreign markets and exported to China. Illegal harvesting has steadily increased in recent years. In 2023, we estimate licensed fishers were outnumbered 10 to 1 by poachers. This fishery is particularly appealing to unlicensed fishers because of the lack of enforcement. In 2023, DFO estimates that 45% of the overall quota was taken by unlicensed harvesters, yet enforcement efforts to curb this poaching were glaringly absent.
Among these poachers are First Nations unwilling to work with DFO to access the fishery under a banner of moderate livelihood rights, backed by organized crime, specifically biker gangs and foreign smuggling networks. Our once-peacefully industry has recently faced violent disruption. The response from both DFO and RCMP to the activities of organized criminals has been almost non-existent. Poaching became so rampant in 2020 and 2023 that the minister prematurely closed the fishery, costing those fishing legally their livelihood while poachers continued to fish unchecked for months. In a few short years, the most well-regulated fishery in Canada has become chaotic and unsafe for legal harvesters.
Minister Lebouthillier faces a choice in the coming weeks: close the fishery and support unregulated fishers backed by Chinese money and organized crime, or open the fishery with increased enforcement and support hard-working legal fishermen trying to provide for their families. The choice is that simple.
Senators, I implore you not to believe any of the misleading statements that removing legal fishers from rivers will reduce the number of illegal and unregulated fishers taking our place. Poachers will be out in force as soon as the elvers start running, as they were during the shutdowns of 2020 and 2023.
When testifying before the House of Commons Fisheries Committee, Deputy Minister Gibbons was absolutely clear that there is no plan for any additional enforcement on the river in 2024, despite closing the legal fishery. I want to stress that the industry has asked, pleaded and begged for increased enforcement over the last five years, but DFO’s response has been no additional budget, no additional enforcement and no plan.
If the fishery is closed in 2024, the minister will crush the livelihoods of 1,100 hard-working Canadians, 800 of whom are Indigenous, while simultaneously telling the public that she supports Canadian fishers.
For many years, CCSEF and its members have been unequivocally supportive of increased Indigenous participation in the elver fishery. What we oppose is the refusal by DFO, and more generally the Government of Canada, to either define or regulate the moderate livelihood rights, as required by Marshall II, which results in unregulated fishing and the involuntary relinquishment of quota without compensation. The people who pioneered this industry deserve compensation for their decades of hard work, and First Nation leaders recognize this.
Beyond me, CCSEF is open to all reasonable discussion. We are actively engaged in elver fishery discussions with Maritime First Nation communities. All stakeholders agree that DFO has mismanaged this fishery. All commercial license holders, the chief of the Wolastoqey First Nations in New Brunswick and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs have all publicly stated that DFO has not done enough to curb poaching in the elver fishery.
It is unmanageable that simply giving up on a legal fishery would be Minister Lebouthillier’s solution to curbing the chaos when working earnestly to resolve the issues before the season starts is within reach. We have repeatedly given suggestions regarding how to address the concerns outlined by the minister, including four suggestions which would allow the 2024 season to open: impose a delayed opening, implement a pilot traceability system, announce a fishery close date and limit the number of authorized fishers per river. Neither the minister nor DFO has responded and, from experience, we’re not confident that they will.
We have the following two additional suggestions for the minister when considering how to resolve the challenges facing the elver fishery long term. First, this is not a homegrown problem. Illegal elver fishing sits at the crossroads of transnational organized crime. Eels are so important to the Chinese, who are the primary buyers of Canadian elvers, that they will readily buy black and grey market elvers from anyone and pay in cash, which has opened the door for global organized crime.
The second challenge is the growing demand for Indigenous communities to access the fishery. To ensure the sustainability of the industry, we feel strongly that access must be licensed by DFO. As of 2022, 28% of the overall quota has been designated to Indigenous harvesters.
We hope the minister takes some of our suggestions and allows for at least a partial season in 2024. If not, the affordability crisis facing our fishers as well as hundreds of First Nations harvesters will dramatically worsen.
Thank you again for your time. We’re happy to take your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We have some senators, of course, who are very interested in this issue.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. As someone who’s recently moved to Dartmouth, I’ve become aware of some of the issues in that area. It occurred to me even before hearing your testimony that this issue has not been so much about sustainability as about the lack of resources or unwillingness to enforce illegal harvesting. I think that’s what you told us.
I have some questions to explore that. First, have you had discussions directly, face to face, with the minister on this issue? If so, what has she actually told you? Second, have you or any other organization that you’re aware of explored alternative methods to DFO or RCMP enforcement? Are there other ways that enforcement can be done than just simply relying on DFO or the RCMP?
Ms. Carey: We have not had the opportunity to sit in front of the minister as of yet. We have spoken to her predecessors about this issue a few times. However, I am hopeful to get that chance to have a chat to discuss this with her.
As for the enforcement, I think our options at the moment are the options that are available to any Canadian who is having some issues. You would call either the RCMP or the DFO. Those are the bodies tasked to regulate the fishery and keep the peace.
Stanley King, Member and Fisherman, Atlantic Elver Fishery, Canadian Committee for a Sustainable Eel Fishery, Inc.: To add to the answer, other avenues can be used for enforcement, namely the CBSA. The vast majority of these illegal fish, black-market fish, are being shipped out of Canadian airports destined typically for Hong Kong. The CBSA seized 0 kilograms last season despite at least 4.5 metric tonnes being shipped out of Canadian airports. That’s DFO’s estimate. We believe it’s much closer to 20 metric tonnes. They all went through airports. If DFO is unwilling to police the rivers, we implore CBSA to cut the head off the snake and take that action at the airports.
Mitch Feigenbaum, Member and President, South Shore Trading Co. Ltd., Canadian Committee for a Sustainable Eel Fishery, Inc.: In addition, one aspect of enforcement that I don’t feel any of the quota holders in the fishery have ever felt comfortable exploring, nor would we want to explore in the future, is self-help type measures and hiring private security.
At the intersection of all the issues confronting the fishery is the fact that there are a great number of Indigenous participants coming from a variety of backgrounds. Some actually hold DFO authorizations to fish. Others are coming from bands that have issued their own authorizations without a DFO stamp of approval. Other factions are just independent harvesters who have no regard for Canadian authority. They absolutely dispute that DFO has any right to manage a fishery where they assert treaty rights. Those folks are typically the most assertive in terms of trying to push their rights.
We’ve gotten the message from government and from talking to the most responsible First Nation leaders that any kind of self‑help measures would really be counterproductive in the fishery and counterproductive to the entire reconciliation agenda of the country. We have been talking to some of the most responsible First Nation partners — and they’re really partners. We’ve been working with the First Nations for years and years in this fishery, recognizing how important it is to them in terms of advancing their treaty rights. The eel is very importnat to them, and this fishery is very important to them. They are adamant that the only way to get a real long-term solution is to engage with the most assertive elements of the First Nation communities and make clear to them and to all Canadians that everyone has to be brought under a common umbrella. We, as quota holders, fully support that approach.
Senator Kutcher: I am way out of my depth, so to speak, in this next question. I understand that the rivers and the fish may be federal responsibility, but the land that the people walk on is probably not federal responsibility. Is there a role for municipal policing in terms of access to the resource? Has that ever been explored or discussed?
Ms. Carey: I actually own property on one of the rivers that we fish. From personal experience, when you’re calling for a trespassing complaint, the RCMP maybe responds. That’s a big “maybe.” Last season, I would say not at all. We’ve been told that if we’re calling for fishery complaints, it’s hands off.
Senator Kutcher: Municipal policing?
Mr. King: Municipal policing and the police of jurisdiction have been instructed by DFO not to respond to elver calls. We’ve been told that directly, so this is fact for us.
We’ve also implored the provinces to dedicate some of their provincially employed conservation officers, who are also sworn fisheries officers, to this issue. They have the same enforcement capability as a federally designated fisheries officer. Over the last few years, we’ve asked them to be dedicated to the elver fishery, especially on the rivers on which we conduct science because when poaching is not curtailed, the science suffers and we have to cancel it.
Unfortunately, DFO will not accept that help from the province. They’ve told us that, although the fisheries officers have the same training as the provincial conservation officers, they are concerned that they may not have some auxiliary training such as, I don’t know, crisis management. If things were to get heated between some illegal fishers and the enforcement officers, they’re concerned that they don’t have the appropriate training, although they are sworn fisheries officers. It’s very frustrating. They could be a resource that could absolutely help our fishery, but DFO refuses to utilize them.
Senator Kutcher: Have they been helpful by suggesting that they would actually do the training?
Mr. King: We haven’t approached them to ask them to do the training, but they have offered support. They’ve said that they will go out and help if DFO will accept it, but DFO will not.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Petten: I’m just wondering about the elver integrated fisheries management plan, evergreen, Maritimes Region. Is that part of DFO? It is.
When the deputy minister indicated that they had closed the river twice in the past four years using the ministerial fisheries management order, what does that mean? How are they connected?
Ms. Carey: The integrated fisheries management plan is the framework that our fishery operates within. The minister closing the fishery was basically due to their prediction that there had been a lot of poaching activity on the rivers. We have a total allowable catch for our industry. Each licence holder is able to catch so much, and that had been exceeded through poaching. That was how she determined to close the fishery in those two years.
Senator Petten: How confident are you, though, that the numbers are what they’ve indicated? If there’s all this poaching and you don’t know the numbers, and if DFO is not doing part of it, how confident are you with the numbers they say are associated with the industry?
Mr. Feigenbaum: If I may, Senator Petten, thank you. Basically, there are numbers coming from multiple sources, and they’re really reflecting the fact that there are several different issues regarding the trade of eels and its interaction with Canada. It’s believed — in fact, it’s known — and it’s been widely published that enormous amounts of glass eels from other jurisdictions transit through Canada. Now, when the international investigators in Hong Kong who are interested in this subject matter analyze the records of imports in Hong Kong, these records show that maybe over 100 tons of glass eels have transited through Canada, and substantial portions are supposedly product of Canada, suggesting they actually originated in Canada.
I can say very confidently, even after speaking to DFO scientists who are very critical of the fishery, that even they recognize that those numbers are not reliable. They do not in any way reflect the amount of fish that could possibly have been harvested in Canada, not to mention in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which are cited as two substantial sources of eels transiting through Canada. Therefore, when we hear numbers like that, they are not reliable. We would beseech all elements of government to take those numbers with a gigantic grain of salt, recognizing that they reflect another problem, which is that paperwork and the mislabelling of fish are rampant issues.
As far as what is actually being taken out of the Canadian rivers without authorization, we basically think that the numbers, as Stan said, could be as high as 20 tons in a fishery where our TAC, total allowable catch, is 10 tons. Our TAC might have been exceeded by double. It could be a little less, or it could be more. Anything more specific than that would be anecdotal. I’d be happy to share with you the anecdotal information I have as to what was caught unlawfully, but just from seeing the volume of individuals on the rivers when we’re there, we think it could be as high as 20 tons — probably not, but it could be that high.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for appearing before us this morning. I apologize. We were at another meeting, and it takes some time to walk or get the bus.
I’m relatively new to this committee. I’m also from Toronto, and the joke among the MPs and senators is, “What is a Toronto person doing on the Fisheries Committee?” I would love to know, what is the role of the DFO? What is their job description? All I’ve heard about the DFO is incidents of racism and of — dare I say this — not doing what they’re supposed to do. I’m trying to be polite. It seems they create hurdles instead of helping and making the path easier. The minister was here before us, and I got the impression that she was going to be very receptive to what she’s hearing from the community. Can you tell me if you think she’s being receptive? Is she listening to the community at all?
Mr. King: Thank you for the question.
The role of DFO is well defined, especially the enforcement branch. Their enforcement branch is designed and mandated to enforce the Fisheries Act. That’s their job, and that’s what they’re hired to do. Unfortunately, that comes with great discretion, and a lot of political will influences that discretion. We believe that the political will of Ottawa has influenced their discretion to not enforce our fisheries, and that has undermined not only our jobs, our local economies and our tax dollars, but the stability and longevity of our fishery. This is a fishery that was very well regulated for 30 years, and now it teeters with an unknown future because of the lack of enforcement.
The role that the minister plays — she’s a new minister. We’re very hopeful that the minister will enact some positive change, but we’ve also seen many ministers follow this role and not enact change, although we’ve been asking for it for many years. We’ve been asking for a traceability system for 10 years, and there has been no action. We’ve been asking for increased enforcement for over five years, and there’s been no action. We believe the minister has the capability to enforce and enact positive change if the Maritimes region, where she gets her information from, her briefings, would be forthright in their approach and education of the minister. We’re unsure if the minister really gets a clear picture of what is happening because we feel that our local Maritimes region DFO is somewhat biased, and they have some kind of agenda to push. Therefore, we’re unsure if the minister has a clear picture of what’s going on. We’re hopeful that if she does get that picture — we’ve asked to brief the minister many times, and we have been unable to so far — that she will choose the correct path.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you. If there was one message this committee could take to the minister, what would you like it to be?
Mr. King: To please let industry brief her. We have concrete ideas on not only the short-term fixes for the fishery but long‑term fixes. We have all been in the fishery since day one. We are pioneers of this industry. There was no industry before we started. There was no market before we started. We had to travel abroad to Asia. We took many trips to drum up a market and clients to buy our fish. The value of the fishery right now is a direct response from our hard work. We know it like no others, and no middle managing DFO bureaucrat can inform the minister better than we can. We would very much like that opportunity.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you so much for being here.
I read an article in I think The Chronicle Herald last week or the week before, and it was a huge article. I think it was a full page or half a page at least. It certainly expressed to me the dire circumstances that we are in as fisheries in — I’ll say in Nova Scotia because that’s where I’m from, but wherever. Having you here before us just compounds it with what you’re telling us.
We’ve got illegal poaching. You’ve told us they’re not being stopped by DFO or the CBSA. Civic police have been told not to respond. DFO will not accept help from provincial officers. To me, it sort of sounds like it’s a free-for-all. Would that be a good definition?
Ms. Carey: It would.
Senator Cordy: When you look at the amount of money that people are getting from it, with no oversight, there doesn’t seem much incentive for people to want to stop. Why would they? Would that be fairly true?
Ms. Carey: Absolutely.
Senator Cordy: Okay. I’m not sure what we can do.
You talked about the fact that CBSA has seized 0 kilograms of elvers. What you’ve heard is that 4.5 metric tons have been sent through, but it’s likely much higher. How much higher did you say it would be?
Mr. King: DFO acknowledges that it’s least 4.5 metric tonnes, but we believe that it’s probably closer to 20. We get that number because DFO closed the fishery when they believed 10 metric tonnes had been caught. We witnessed continued fishing after that by hundreds if not thousands of people for two additional months. The fishery was closed after 18 days, and there was 10 metric tonnes caught in those 18 days, and then they fished for 6 or 8 weeks after that. That’s where we believe that the number is much higher.
Senator Cordy: So when the fisheries close, the registered fishers stop fishing but the poachers continue?
Mr. King: Correct.
Senator Cordy: I read in the article, and you clarified it today, that elvers from Haiti and Dominican — I thought there were more countries — are being shipped through Canada. How are they managing to get the elvers shipped from Haiti or Dominican to go through Canada? Why would they go through Canada?
Mr. Feigenbaum: In the ultimate marketplace for eels, the origin of the eels has an impact on the price. From a matter of logistics as well, moving any product from Haiti nowadays, it would be very difficult to find reliable services in that country, which I believe is quite dysfunctional at this time. Anyone harvesting elvers there would need to figure out a way to get them out. It doesn’t just appear. There’s a lot of information suggesting that Canada has become a very desirable choice for moving those eels.
I think it simply has to do with the fact that DFO has no jurisdiction over the import of seafood into the country. I shouldn’t say it has none, but I’m just not aware of it. The health inspection agencies around the world for international trade of food products generally take responsibility for tracking the movement of animal products in trade, so that would be the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Basically, they have a suite of tools available for identifying incoming eels and exporting eels. They have rules. They have agreements with China and Hong Kong.
The fact remains that the eels seem like they come in very easily, and as long as they stay in Canada for a day or two, there seems to be some aspects of CFIA, some local offices, that will just issue a certificate. I hate to say it’s willy-nilly because that would be unfair to CFIA. I don’t know what background work they are doing. I know that for me to get a certificate to export products over a 25-year period, I’m highly regulated, inspected, visited and known to all of the government agencies, and yet there’s this perception in the industry that eels can just come into Toronto, product of U.S., product of Haiti, product of Dominican Republic, product of Cuba, product of Jamaica. I know I’ve thrown a lot of other names out there, but it is primarily a Haitian and Dominican Republic issue. All these eels could be coming in and then just leaving as a Canadian product.
When we talk about numbers like 100 tonnes — which some paperwork in Hong Kong is showing and reporting — either that is just completely fraudulent paperwork or it suggests that unlawful eels, even from Europe, could possibly be coming through Canada because the Europeans banned the export of their elvers outside of the EU. The EU allows elver fishing on a scale much larger than Canada, by the way. The lawful harvest in Europe is in the 30 to 50 tonne range, but they are not allowed to be exported to China, so that creates yet another layer in the international trade where there are incentives for players to find the jurisdictions or the countries where the situation is most lax and where enforcement awareness perhaps is lax. I hope that answered the question.
Senator Cordy: It’s scary, but it does.
Mr. Feigenbaum: Don’t be so scared. We have solutions.
Senator Cordy: That’s what I was going to say. What would you like to happen?
Mr. Feigenbaum: I’m sorry that Senator Ataullahjan left because I thought she asked a great question. What is DFO’s role? DFO’s role is quite clear. Like any government ministry, its job is to maximize Canadian values in its management of the matters in its jurisdiction. DFO’s mandate has been incredibly clear for at least the 25 years that I’ve been living in the rural Maritimes involved in this fishery. It’s very clear that the national goals in this fishery are always conservation first. The species is the first goal.
The second goal is value adding. We have heard for 25 years that Canada does not just want to be a natural resource exporter. We would like to figure out how to exploit and maximize the value of these resources domestically. I’m happy to say that my colleagues and I have made incredible strides in that area, which includes a $10 million investment in domestic aquaculture, $4 million of which have been supplied by the Canadian government and $1 million of which has been supplied by the U.S. government to Canadians doing research into this issue.
In addition to that, our First Nation friends, and in some cases partners, are intentionally interested and have expressed to DFO that they are intentionally interested in not merely looking at the eel fishery and the elver fishery as a moderate livelihood opportunity but as a robust opportunity that they can enjoy for literally decades or centuries to come.
We have set the table for reconciliation to happen, and by the way, that’s the third goal of DFO’s mandate. That’s the requirement that both parties, ministers for 20 years, have been conveying to the DFO: conservation, value add, and First Nation reconciliation. And it really feels that no matter how hard we try, no matter how many positive steps that the industry has done on its own to promote reconciliation, DFO clearly does not want to help those efforts. There’s powerful evidence that DFO wants to thwart those efforts, and that’s because there are some folks in DFO who feel, from the conservation standpoint, that this fishery should not exist. They do not favour this industry. Rather than engage the minister and engage Parliament in a robust discussion of those issues, they just are letting the fishery descend into chaos. There are so many voices within DFO that would like that to happen so they can justify shutting the fishery down based on endangered species concerns.
The last point I want to make on this, and even the minister is not aware, at least the last minister, because Genna and I had a chance to discuss it with her very briefly, is that after the 2023 closure of this fishery, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has assessed the conservation status of the species twice in a 15-year period. Under the Bush Administration, the second Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service has said very decisively that the species is not endangered and it’s not threatened with endangerment. It’s a common species that breeds as one. In reaching that decision, the U.S. has specifically repudiated the voices in Canada that say they feel it is threatened. The Fish and Wildlife Service has specifically said it is not threatened at the species level and it is not threatened in any portion of its range.
I won’t get further into the science than that, but basically what can we do? DFO simply needs to host and needs to sit down at a table with the First Nations’ responsible leaders. They have formal rights organizations that are engaged in conversation with us. We have relationships with the entire Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick. All six bands in New Brunswick are engaged in conversation with us. DFO does not facilitate these conversations. We asked DFO to come in to host and guide conversations. They are just showing no interest.
That’s the easy solution here, to let the minister know we can solve this problem. I’d be happy to elaborate, but for now let me just say that I am confident that this problem can be solved, based on personal relationships with multiple chiefs of the leading First Nations in the Maritimes, based on conversations with the leaders of their rights organizations and based on signed agreements with six chiefs of the Wolastoqey Nation to joint venture and cooperate in this fishery.
Despite all of these efforts, DFO keeps the parties apart. There was a hearing on this a few weeks ago in the other place. Member of Parliament Serge Cormier said to the deputy minister, “Why aren’t we just bringing the stakeholders to the table?” Serge Cormier shared his personal experience where some of his constituents and fisheries were having challenges over the reconciliation issues. DFO brought all those parties together and the problem was solved.
We can solve this problem. I’m happy to share some specifics about that, very specific information about the exact problems the minister is citing to close the fishery. We can attack those issues head on right now. We can identify what the issues and solutions are, certainly to a sufficient degree to open the fishery, as Stan and Genna said. If we need to delay the opening of the season for a week or two because issues need to be worked out, so be it.
We’re a very cooperative fishery. We educated the First Nations about this fishery in a deliberate decision to promote reconciliation. We were encouraged by former ministers and former ministers’ advisers to make the outreach to the First Nations, to include them in our value-add efforts, to brief them and even to work with them on the rivers in relationship building, which we’ve done. We’ve actually had teams of commercial fishermen and teams of First Nation individuals working together so that the First Nation individuals could learn about this fishery and their leaders could start developing the capacity to manage this fishery. That’s how committed this industry is to the country’s First Nation agenda. We’re also committed to the value-add agenda because although the Canadian government put in $4 million and the U.S. government put in $1 million, the commercial quota holders put in $4 million. You can rest assured that when we assert our confidence and our good intentions to bring solutions, we could put our money where our mouths are.
Senator Cuzner: I think the points you are making, Mitch, absolutely land. We have learned a lot in the wake of Marshall and accommodation within the crab and lobster sector not allocating additional resource or quota but buying and redistributing the quota from within the sector. I think it’s something that has worked fairly well. It’s not perfect, by any means, but it’s probably the first real opportunity that many First Nations have experienced in generations. It seems that is the track you folks were on as well to bring the First Nations communities along. Could you elaborate a bit? Has that been floated as a possibility, the purchase of allocation to accommodate reconciliation?
Perhaps you could elaborate as well on something that the state of Maine went through. We seem to be in a similar situation as to where Maine was 10 years ago. I worked with Commissioner Keliher on the right whale stuff, and I know that they dug in. They seemed to have found a much more comfortable spot. Could you speak a bit about the Maine experience?
Mr. King, how are we not nabbing them? I know we’ve had some downstream success in other fisheries with the brokers and shippers and what have you. Why are we not getting anybody at Stanfield airport? How are they getting the product out?
Mr. Feigenbaum: Thank you, senator. I’ll start with the question about what’s the issue about compensating folks for relinquishing their interests and privileges.
The post-Marshall initiative has been based on the idea that the government will use a “willing buyer, willing seller” concept to try to obtain access. I don’t mean to be too critical. I know that a lot of thoughtful people designed this strategy 20 years ago. However, in and of itself, the concept of “willing buyer, willing seller” is inappropriate in a fishery where the court has said, “Commercial guys, you might have to yield some of your rights or your interest to the First Nation treaty rights.” We are basically in a situation where we are told that relinquishment is really not voluntary. “We might have to take some of your quota, no matter what. Now, are you willing to voluntarily relinquish it?”
Basically, as applied to the elver fishery, we are certain that that approach was not taken by the government in good faith. The government, one time in 15 years, says, “We’re going to give you a chance to tell us what you think your quotas are worth and tell us how you base your valuations.” Everyone in the industry went through a major effort to explain the value of our quotas, and the government said, “Give us your one best shot, because that’s all you’re getting.” We heard feedback from the government. After they basically ignored proposals for the better part of a year, they said they were too high and that the voluntary relinquishment concept was not viable at this time. They also said they were rushed because of the lobster issues. All of this took place in the 2021 season.
The point is that the government, from that point on, has embarked on a visible public relations campaign to paint the quota holders as being overly enriched because they were in a fishery 30 years ago that only had this value, and having built it to this value, now the value is so great. I don’t want to call it a smear campaign, but it feels like a smear campaign if you’ve devoted 30 years of your life to a fishery and then to have the government saying, “We’re not only not going to pursue ’willing buyer, willing seller’ with this particular fishery, but we feel you have too much; we’re just going to take back.”
That’s the state of the post-Marshall initiative. As Genna mentioned in her opening comments, the biggest problem with the post-Marshall approach of the government is that the Marshall cases clearly say that DFO must regulate the moderate livelihood right. The right exists; DFO must regulate it. DFO takes a very hard and adamant position that they will not regulate it except through negotiated efforts with the First Nations. Those efforts never bear fruit. I take that back. Those efforts rarely bear fruit, at which point the government just leaves the status quo in place.
First Nation individuals asserting their treaty rights go out and fish. If DFO tries to enforce the law, the courts and prosecutors say, “Well, there’s no regulation that says they can’t.” So DFO simply needs to make a regulation saying here’s what the dos and don’ts are, and they need to apply it to all First Nations. Of course they should negotiate and consult, but if those consultations and negotiations don’t bear fruit, DFO can’t say they’re going to cede the fishery to unlawful, unauthorized fishermen. DFO needs to say, “Here are the rules.” Obviously, if the First Nations feel the rules are unfair or inappropriate, or that they haven’t been given proper consultation, they are very knowledgeable of their rights.
I will turn my attention to the question about Maine. This really goes to the issue of problem solving. We can solve these problems. The minister said she wants to shut the fishery down this year, and she basically, through her deputy minister, cited two reasons. She said we need a traceability system in this fishery — which we have been asking for over 10 years — but we just don’t have time to get the regulations in place to get that traceability system in place for 2024. In the other place, the regional director general testified that it took Maine six years to get their traceability system in place, suggesting that we should be more patient. That was just not fair. That was not fair testimony. It was misleading. My affiliates in the state of Maine and I, after the year 2012, when glass eels reached their all-time high — they haven’t been that high since despite all the media sensationalism about $5,000 a kilo. That’s just not true. That’s not the price. That has been the high price of the last 10 years. Anyway, after the 2012 season, in a matter of six months, not six years, Maine eliminated the use of cash in its fishery entirely. The Maine system had been historically based only on cash transactions. In six months, the State of Maine banned cash in the business. In those same six months, the State of Maine adopted the first traceability system that was based on a software system that provides in-time real information to the government as to where eels are in the distribution chain. Maine also imposed quota management that year for the first time.
With the full-throated support of the industry and a lot of First Nation participation in Maine, they solved all those problems in six months. The department has said it needs more time to implement regulations. In fact, one of the problems is that they have to go backward in regulations because their review of the regulations shows that they were already regulating us for 30 years in a way that was not justified by the wording of the regulations. They told us three weeks ago that not only are they not going to implement a traceability system because that’s too complicated and we need more time to do the regulatory work, they also said, by the way, you know how for 30 years we’ve required that any time eels leave your facility they have to be monitored by an independent monitor? We’re not doing that anymore. They actually said that, for a very brief period of time, we’re going to under-regulate. We’re going to deregulate this industry. Then, three or four days later, the notice of intent to close came down. I think the department recognized how untenable this is.
The solution is very simple, and I’m quite confident that the vast majority of our colleagues on the First Nations side would agree. On traceability, the issue is very simple. There will be a very limited number of quota holders. Those quota holders will create a voluntary system where we can guarantee to the Senate, to the House and to the people of Canada that through our voluntary efforts no authorized eel will mix with an unauthorized eel. It was the claim of DFO that they needed to shut down because there’s too much mixing going on.
By the way, that testimony was very painful for some of us to hear who are here today, because some of us have worked diligently for 20 years — and we can prove it — to make sure that our eels never blended with unauthorized eels. We took voluntary steps to be able to make that assertion here. For 20 years, we’ve been keeping our eels out of the stream of commerce with the unlawful ones. For 20 years, we have worked hard on that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Feigenbaum. We have some other senators who are very anxious to ask some questions. If we have some time near the end, I’ll give everyone a chance to say more on this really important issue.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much for being here.
My question is for you, Ms. Carey. DFO had introduced an elver integrated fisheries management plan for the Maritime regions. How involved were you in designing this program? Did you have any input? Do you see the validity of it? Has there been any realistic outcome in terms of conservation quotas, et cetera?
Ms. Carey: Yes, absolutely. We sat at the table while that plan was being drawn up. The licence holders had a say in that plan and its outcomes, and I think it is a valuable piece of paper to have. However, without regulation or enforcement on unregulated fishing, it really doesn’t mean anything, unfortunately. Everything boils down to enforcement and what is enforced and what isn’t enforced.
Mitch has made the point that we’re very willing to work and to help move this fishery back to a sustainable place like where it was for a very long time. We just need to get there. We need the resources and the tools. We have been in touch with multiple companies who say a traceability system is feasible for this season. Even as few as four days ago, I was in touch with one of them saying that we could still do this at the last minute, and my response had to unfortunately be that I don’t think I’m going to have a season this year. I would love to do something, but I can’t, and I can’t because even though we have volunteered to pay for a traceability system and get it up and running, DFO won’t accept the data because it goes against procurement procedures.
Again, we have all kinds of solutions, but seemingly nothing that we can act on at the moment because DFO is just unwilling to go down the road.
Senator Ravalia: I’m from Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the elver fishery in our province is a relatively small market, but would you be able to give me some idea of the economic impacts? I’ve had some emails from individuals in the Glovertown region where some of the Mi’kmaq fishers were involved. As for the economic impact in my province, do you think it would be significant if it was shut down this year? Do you have an estimated dollar value?
Ms. Carey: I don’t have an estimated dollar value. I can say that it’s a small fishery in Newfoundland. We don’t have a lot of information about it because it is so small. It’s about a 150 kilogram quota there at the moment.
Senator Ravalia: But the resource, apparently, is much larger than that? Is that the case?
Mr. King: We believe that the industry could be expanded. We are working with a predetermined total allowable catch. We are proponents of expanding the fishery. We have a long-term data set scientifically analyzed by DFO that would support that, but until the SARA listing is complete, the Species at Risk Act, which is about eight years overdue right now, DFO refuses to increase the total allowable catch.
Ms. Carey: Which would impact it.
Mr. King: Newfoundland could certainly have more quota.
Mr. Feigenbaum: If I could interrupt and add to that, senator, there had been a major effort on the north shore made in 2013 and 2014. Twenty adult eel commercial fishermen petitioned and received an experimental license from DFO to explore an elver fishery in that region, and those efforts did not bear fruit because the nature of the elver fishery is that in many places the glass eel metamorphoses into a pigmented eel in the saltwater before it reaches the freshwater. A lot of the growth cycle of the eel can take place in the estuary or marine environment, and in fact, that is the way it is in most of its range in North America. The glass eel fishery is so prominent in Maine, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia because there’s something about our topography that creates the fishing opportunity. The eels actually metamorphose right in the tidal zone in our region.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Even if the goal were enforcement, is it realistic, given the number of rivers, to reopen the fishery this year? Is it realistic to believe that the RCMP and Fisheries and Oceans Canada can impose sanctions for illegal fishing?
Second, even if this were done with the First Nations and legal harvesters, wouldn’t another issue arise at customs, which handles all kinds of imported products, especially from Haiti and other islands? This aspect will remain. Won’t this encourage illegal fishing by biker gangs or organized crime? I don’t know whether you can answer my question.
[English]
Mr. Feigenbaum: If I can take up the first half of the question, yes, it is realistic to open this season. With any bit of political will, DFO and RCMP can enforce the fishery. Here’s why. There’s an existing fishery footprint today. How many rivers do we have? Maybe 40, 50 or 60 rivers on the nine commercial licences that are authorized for fishing. In those 30 years, we all share the same experience.
The RCMP officers who patrol the rivers know who we are and we know who they are. We have had interactions on a constant basis over a course of years. They know my people by face and by name. They come to the river and talk to us. Admittedly, if the future of the fishery is going to be somehow changed to a view that, rather than having only 20 individuals on a licence, we’re going to have hundreds or even thousands of people on a licence, that does represent a sea change in the fishery that would create a new enforcement situation that would be more challenging.
The solution is very simple. Again, we’ve talked to the First Nation leaders about this. While it’s important to them, we understand that they want to authorize a thousand people to fish if a thousand people in their community express a desire to fish. If that’s the case, DFO, consistent with 30 years of the fishery management plan that’s been referred to, should still impose the requirement. I think the First Nations would give genuine consideration to a requirement that they, too, can only have 20 people out fishing in a given night. That’s how we’re regulated. We’re only allowed to bring so many people to the river. That way enforcement is easy.
If the same rule applied in the First Nation situation, where only so many people could be out on a given river in the night, DFO and the RCMP could appear at a river and instantly know, “Are these the people? Is there a small number of people that seem to make sense for what we’ve approved here, or are there dozens or hundreds of people,” in which case calling the RCMP would be the issue.
Finally, one thing to remember on enforcement is that these are the real experts here. As quota holders, we are all capable of catching almost 75% or 85% of our quotas in 10 good nights of fishing during the season. Generally, we know in advance because all of this fishery operates around the tidal cycles. We know from the moon charts when our five biggest fishing days during the next month will be. We know, and DFO knows, too. Their officers are smart. Targeting law enforcement resources to those locations and those nights when the fish are really running heavily would address a huge portion of the problem.
Ms. Carey: In addition, it’s not an easy solution but it is. There are a lot of rivers and there are a lot of individuals, but if you target your efforts, as Mitch is saying, and if you pick one or two rivers each night and start enforcing the Fisheries Act among those people fishing outside of a DFO-issued licence; the picture will become clear. I think that will have an impact and a trickle‑down effect where eventually you’re going to get to a spot where there aren’t hundreds and hundreds of people on a couple of rivers times 25 over the province during the season.
Mr. King: I’ll add that if H&R Block can hire 5,000 accountants for tax season, the Government of Canada can hire an extra 100 or 200 enforcement officers or reassign them for 10 to 14 days. It’s not a big ask. They can be brought in from other regions. We can hire temporary employees. It’s not a long season. Like Mitch said, we know when they’ll be needed.
Senator C. Deacon: Mitch, we’ve chatted in the past during the pandemic. This issue continues to be a frustration. I’m summing it up pretty simply, but when somebody doesn’t want to do a deal with you, they can find 10,000 ways to not do a deal with you. On attempts and efforts, I think you’re on 10,001 or 10,002 or 10,003 now. If there’s one thing to take away from this — tell me if I’m wrong — it’s that we have to get the minister to prioritize having a meeting on this. We can follow the money. There’s a poacher, a buyer and an exporter. There’s a leak in the system there somewhere. You know when they’re fishing so you can enforce in a targeted way. The systems are there to have traceability. If DFO doesn’t want to dance — and they don’t want to dance; it sounds like they’ve proven that for a generation — we’ve got a problem. Am I summing it up fairly well?
Mr. King: Yes, you are. We’ve learned from the past two closures that DFO does not want to dance, to use your words. They use this excuse to close the fishery, we’ll know that everybody out there is not supposed to be there because all of the licensed fishermen will be at home collecting unemployment. That’s not actually the case. It won’t happen this year as well. In 2020 and 2023 when they closed the fishery, they knew everybody out there wasn’t supposed to be there, and they didn’t do anything then.
Senator C. Deacon: I have one other question focusing on you, Mr. King and Ms. Carey. The opportunity of the fishery in terms of rural and economic development is well beyond anything we have today, I expect. Can you give us a sense of the magnitude of the rural economic development opportunity in Atlantic Canada if we start to manage this in a more sensible manner?
Mr. King: Sure. I’ll take the first crack at that. This is a huge fishery for rural Canadians. That is where almost the entirety of the fishery is located. We employ rural women and men, many of them from all of our small communities, and this pumps approximately $45 million into those small economies every single year, not only through very good-paying jobs but also through economic donations to keep small communities running. It really has many spinoffs. Other businesses are supported by the elver fishing industry as well. The rural Canadians in our ridings who are struggling with housing, grocery prices and the toughest economy in decades will be crushed when this fishery is finally closed.
Senator C. Deacon: Add to that reconciliation being a wonderful benefit of our working in this space diligently.
Ms. Carey: Yes. The government has an opportunity to make a good-news story out of this, not all the bad titles that they’ve gotten as of late.
Senator C. Deacon: You’ve certainly convinced me. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: We have a couple of senators who want second round. We’re a little over 10, but I hope you have time to indulge us with other questions.
I have a comment of my own before going on to the second round. I’m assuming that the equipment needed to involve yourself in the elver fishery isn’t a $10 million ocean-going boat and that it is fairly inexpensive to acquire the equipment to go out and be an amateur fisher. It’s something people can do. With that assumption, I’ll go on to the other part of my comment. I’m surprised that a quantity of perishable contraband, and we’re talking tonnes, is travelling through our airports on a regular basis at a specific time. This doesn’t happen all year; this happens during a season. How does it travel? I know it’s not a carry-on or a suitcase. How does this commodity travel? Is it a big crate that would have water and be oxygenated?
Ms. Carey: You’re right, it doesn’t take a lot to fish for eels. You need a bucket, a dip net and maybe some boots if you don’t want your feet getting wet.
When it comes to transportation, you would think it would be complicated, but it really isn’t. You need a plastic bag with a little bit of water, a little bit of fish with some oxygen and ice packs to keep them cool to make the journey inside a box. That’s how they make that journey. They can last in that box all the way to China. We do suspect that a lot of the unregulated and illegal eels are leaving through Toronto. They don’t look as closely.
The Deputy Chair: You think they’re trucked to Toronto and then out.
Ms. Carey: Or Montreal. We’ve been told in chats with CBSA that Toronto isn’t looking very closely at what’s leaving. They focus on what’s coming in, so the chances of interception there are much less than if they were leaving from Halifax, which is where most of our illegal eels, or all of them, leave from. Mitch can speak to that.
The Deputy Chair: I’m trying to make a trail here. Because there’s water and liquid involved, et cetera, thinking from my other life, would x-ray be an efficient way of detecting that product?
Ms. Carey: Yes. When we were speaking with CBSA a few weeks ago now, they said they have a handheld X-rays to look inside the pallet to see what is inside. That works relatively well.
The Deputy Chair: Just to sum up for me and have confirmation that I’m on the right track, there are two pointy ends of the stick. There’s enforcement on the river and enforcement at export. Am I correct?
Ms. Carey: Correct.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
We have two people hoping to have a second round, and that can happen. We have a little time.
Senator Petten: The Deputy Minister of Fisheries indicated that she described this fishery as extremely lucrative, and she said it was Canada’s highest value by weight. Obviously, when I listened this morning, this whole issue about everything that’s happened is because of the economics. It’s lucrative.
I read somewhere that you’re dealing with 900 licensed Indigenous fishers and 200 non-Indigenous in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick. You’re dealing with a high amount.
I understand the minister was asking for proposals about what could be done, with replies by March 8, I believe, it was. She had indicated that she feels the problem can be solved with new regulations covering Indigenous fishers, licensing, exporting and the tracking of legally caught eels. She must be hearing some of the things you’re having to say.
This reminds me of the industry with the crab fishery that started in Newfoundland and Labrador. There’s been other examples within Canada of other fisheries. I remember at that time it was about a select number of people who started a fishery and were a part of the ones with the commercial fishers, and then the government decided we needed to share the wealth around with so many other people. They came up with what they called a temporary licence. The big joke in the industry was that there was nothing more permanent than a temporary licence.
That’s what it sounds like you’re dealing with because you’re having to share some of the wealth around what is happening in this fishery. Even though you’ve had a lot of experience dealing with it, you’re also dealing with a situation where the minister is looking at all Canadians. How do we deal with all of those things? It was easy to get into the industry for all of the new entrants because you don’t have any big economic vessels and technology. That’s what you’re dealing with. The economy is the bottom line. That’s what it all boils down to.
I remember a quote I heard once, and it really stuck with me, and that is that those who cry loudly for justice had better be careful they don’t get it in full measure. It just reminds me of what I’m hearing today, even on the economics. It really boils down to all of that.
Mr. King: Thank you for the question.
We certainly don’t mind sharing the industry that we pioneered. There’s room for that in several different ways. We have a quota of 10 metric tonnes. Our long-term scientific study and the DFO scientists support increasing that quota. We could allocate that new quota to First Nation fishers and other participants. We are fully supportive of that plan. There’s also another way to buy back adult eel licences, which we do still fish for adult eel licences. Every adult eel, if they’re successful in swimming to the Sargasso Sea, can generate 20 million elvers. Our annual fishery is 50 million elvers. Adult eels don’t sell for very much so it’s not a lucrative industry. These fishers would be happy to have their licences bought back or exchanged for elver quota. Those are two tangible ways we can increase the overall TAC and provide new access. DFO refuses to do that as well.
I think you’re right. We’re asking for justice, and we may not be happy with the outcome if the minister is stubborn and will not open the fishery, despite it being a huge misstep for all stakeholders, including the New Brunswick government and Nova Scotia government. This is the hand we have dealt, and we implore that the minister will listen to their own scientist who says there’s room for others and we can increase this. This is not a conservation concern.
Senator Petten: I wish you luck, making sure you keep your lobbying and what you need to do. Maybe you can look at other areas and what they’ve done to see what happened and what could be done. It sounds like you’re sharing, but it also means increased lobbying for an increase in the total allowable catch as well.
Senator Kutcher: As a comment, a handheld X-ray scanner costs about $7,000, so not a huge investment. My old profession is coming back. What can I say?
You mentioned the regional office of DFO. Have you had conversations with the regional director or members in the office about some of these concerns? If so, what has been the response to the concerns that you’ve raised with them?
Mr. Feigenbaum: Thank you for the question, senator. My personal experience has been rather bleak in that regard because my company is not just a commercial quota holder but we are also exporters.
Senator Busson, the investments in the fishery are not always fairly characterized as being low capital. In the case of accumulating eels, keeping them alive and the risk of having literally millions of dollars of inventory that becomes worth zero if it perishes — it’s not like you get a salvage value for frozen glass eels. We really have made literally millions of dollars of investment in our infrastructure but also in buying out adult eel licences, because that’s a big part of the IFMP. The IFMP specifically encourages the glass eel fishery to grow if that growth can be accomplished by reducing the harvest of adult eels.
Remember, a glass eel is subject to 99% plus mortality at that stage of its life. It’s going to be food for other animals or just perish because it couldn’t find food in a competitive environment. An adult eel nearing maturity is pretty much an apex predator in a typical coastal freshwater environment. It does not have many more threats other than a long trip back to Sargasso to breed. The investment that the commercial folks have made in the retirement of adult eel licences in order to expand the fishery should not be forgotten.
Now, Senator Petten, Stan referred to your quote about asking for justice. I can assure you, speaking only for South Shore Trading — this goes to the senator’s question over there about what really are the economics of this fishery in the Maritimes — that this is a fishery that can bring in anywhere between $25 million and $50 million a year to our local rural economies, and that serves an industry overseas that’s worth half a billion dollars a year farming the eels to maturity and getting incredible value out of the growth of a toothpick into something the size of an arm. They then process that product into one of the most highly valued sushi products that is ubiquitous in the entire world. It’s a commodity, but it’s one of the most expensive commodities in that business. It’s a $500 billion industry.
My point is that some of us are not afraid at all about the justice we’re asking for as long as we get fairness and justice. If the Government of Canada and the DFO, after a reasoned process, were to tell South Shore Trading that it has to sacrifice some of its quota in order to serve other national goals, so be it. We will accept that. We will continue to move on the First Nation reconciliation and value-add agendas full steam ahead. However, I’ll tell you what injustice is, senator. It’s spending one’s entire adult life trying to build that half-billion-dollar industry for Canada. We shared it with the First Nations hand to hand. We showed them our investment agreements in our aquaculture ventures and invited them to be partners in this venture on the exact same terms as we had among ourselves — a good amount of us. If the result of that process were that South Shore Trading has to enjoy a smaller share of a limited pie, as long as we’ve really examined the size of that pie and seen what it can it be, and as long as we’ve examined the contributions that all the different stakeholders are making to the fishery, we will accept justice. What’s very hard is having to accept a life where your fishery is shut down three out of five years and one time — now — being told it’s not even going to open. The domino effect of decisions like this is remarkable not only on economics and people’s livelihoods but on people’s lives. Really, it’s our lives.
I moved to Canada 24 years ago and singularly devoted my efforts to what we’re talking about: value add, First Nations reconciliation and conservation. My colleagues have too. We’ve given it our all. Injustice is not losing some quota because we have to give it up to the national good. Injustice is being held on a string. Stan was very generous to DFO. They’ve not languished on a species-at-risk decision for eight years. They’ve languished on that decision for over 15 years. You didn’t swear us in, but I will testify to the end of the earth that the reason DFO is languishing on that COSEWIC decision is because of a deliberate desire within the department that this fishery be stymied because there are people within that department who feel that the eels should be listed as threatened. They’re open. We know who these folks are within DFO. We don’t know where the influence of decision making comes from or where the final decisions are made. That’s very murky. But we know loud and clear who the voices are in DFO that want to see the fishery stymied.
That’s why the one take-away we would ask is that this committee share that message that Serge Cormier said in the other place, which is to get the parties to the table, and let’s resolve this. Let’s make the next 10 years the story of reconciliation.
My final word on this is that, by the way, South Shore Trading is the company that bought the eels from Donald Marshall. We talk about the Marshall case. It all arose from the sale of eels by Donald Marshall in Port Elgin, New Brunswick, to South Shore Trading in the 1980s. Since that time, we’ve been fully aware of and committed to — and we’ve studied and taken to heart — the message of the Marshall cases.
For there to be justice, the government — the DFO — just has to do its job and grapple with the difficult issues that are very clearly identified. We know the issues. They just take some very hard decision making with a lot of stakeholders. The table is set for that right now.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Feigenbaum, and thanks to Ms. Carey and Mr. King for your incredibly valuable testimony on a very important and timely topic. I think I would have the agreement of my colleagues to say that we wish we’d heard from you before we had the valuable time with the minister about a month ago. That’s not to say that we aren’t all thinking of ways we can add to the solution to the challenges you are facing. I want to thank you again and wish you well on your travels home.
Before I gavel out, I want to ask the members of this committee to stay for maybe five more minutes of your valuable time. I have something I want to discuss with regard to this topic. Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)